(_a_) That participation witnesses to His true manhood.
Significant use of 'Son of Man' in context.
Because He is so, He must pass into all human circumstances.
Looked at in the light of incarnation, the simple fact that He
shared our common lot in all things assumes proportions of majestic
condescension.
Extend to all physical necessities, and to simple material
pleasures.
What a witness this hostile criticism is to Christ's genial
identification of Himself with homely feasters!
(_b_) It sets forth the highest type of manhood.
John could be ascetic, but the Pattern Man could not.
The true perfecting of humanity is not the extirpation, but the
control, of the flesh by the spirit. And in accordance with this
thought, we may see in the eating and drinking Christ, the pattern
for the religious life. Asceticism is not the noblest form of
sanctity. There is nothing more striking in Old Testament than the
way in which its heroes and saints mingle in all ordinary duties.
They are warriors, statesmen, shepherds, they buy, they sell.
Asceticism came later, along with formalisms of other sorts. When
devotion cools, it is crusted with superstition and external marks
of godliness. Propriety in posturing in worship, casuistry in the
interpretation of law, and abstinence from common enjoyments, came
in Pharisaic times. And into such a world Jesus came, eating and
drinking.
But His bearing in these matters is example for us. They were
rigidly kept in subordination. They were all done in communion with
God.
So He has hallowed all by taking part in them.
Christ should be present in all our material enjoyments. If you
cannot think that He is with you, if you cannot conceive of His
being there, that is no place for you. If you cannot feel that He
approves, that is no fit enjoyment for you.
The tendency of this day is to take a wider view of the liberty
allowed to Christians in regard to partaking in material enjoyment,
and I dare say that many of you who have thought that I spoke well
in insisting on all things belonging to the Christian, will think
that I am dropping back into the old narrow groove in my next
remark, that all such thoughts need guarding.
One has heard the example of Christ invoked to justify unchristian
laxity and excess. Therefore I wish to say that the liberty
permitted to Christians in these matters is to be limited within the
limits within which Christ's was confined.
The excessive use of innocent things is not justified by His
example, nor is the use of things innocent in themselves, which are
mixed up with harmful things.
Christ's example does not warrant the importance attached to luxury,
the waste on mere eating and drinking. It is sometimes quoted as
against total abstinence. It has no bearing on the question. But if
He gave up heaven for His brethren, I think that they who give up an
indulgence for the sake of theirs are in the line of His action. I
venture to think that if Jesus Christ lived in England to-day, He
would be a total abstinence fanatic.
'If thy hand offend thee, cut it off.' Asceticism is not the
highest, but it is sometimes necessary. If my indulgence in innocent
things hurts me, or if my abstinence from them would help others, or
increase my power for good, or if innocent things are intertwisted
with things not innocent, then it is vain to try to shelter under
Christ's example, and the only right course for His disciple is to
abridge his liberty. He came eating and drinking, therefore His
followers may use all innocent earthly blessings and bodily
pleasures, subject to this one law: 'Whether ye eat or drink, or
whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God,' and to this solemn
warning: 'He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption.'